Saturday, June 16, 2012

Wednesday, Iraq was slammed with bombings, it is again today. Today it was again today, despite all the claims by Nouri al-Maliki of additional security. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "Two car bombs targeted Shiite pilgrims Saturday in Baghdad, killing at least 32 people and injuring 68 others, police said." Ahlul Bayt News Agency puts the injured toll at "more than 140." As Kitabat noted earlier this week, the pilgrims were taking part in the holy journey on the anniversary of the death of Imam Musa al-Kadhim. Deutsche Welle notes, "Crowds carried symbolic coffins through the streets as pilgrims beat their chests in mourning as they made their way toward the mosque's two gold domes."

Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) explains, "The pilgrims were marching on foot to return to their homes after they participated in the observation of one of the major Shiite rituals at Kadmiyah's masusoleum of Imam Mussa al-Kadhim the 7th of the most sacred 12 Shiite Imams. During the past few days, large crowds of pilgrims from Iraqi cities and some Muslim countries flocked to Kadhmiyah to observe the annual commemoration of the Imam's death." Hsahim also notes that Nouri's security measures included a ban on all vehicles in "and around the district of Kadhmiyah," as well as closing roads, dispatching military helicopters to fly overhead, adding checkpoints and dispatching "dozens of thousands of Iraqi security troops." AP quotes Mohamed Ali who state, "There is no real security, no real searches," UPI adds:

Khalad Fadhel, a military analyst, said security officials
over-emphasized deploying large numbers of soldiers and police officers
without focusing enough on intelligence work to detect terrorist plots."It shouldn't be a military parade," Mr. Fadhel said. "We need a
security strategy that addresses these shortcomings. I think that what
we've really missed after the withdrawal of the United States is
intelligence information. They were good providers of this kind of
information about possible attacks."

Duraid Adnan and Tim Arango (New York Times) report, "The attacks represented an embarrassment to the army and police, and their top commander, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and raised questions about the ability of Iraq's security forces to protect the population." And that's what happens when you refuse to name heads to the security ministries. Nouri was named prime minister-designate in November 2010.

Per the Constitution, he was supposed to name a Cabinet -- full, not partial -- within 30 days. Failure to do so meant that someone else would be named prime minister-designate. Instead of following the Constitution, Nouri was allowed to become prime minister in December 2010.

The press assured us that Nouri would quickly nominate people to head the security posts. Iraqiya, at the same time, warned Nouri would avoid nominating anyone because then he could control the posts.

How it works is if Nouri nominates Tim Arango to be Minister of the Defense and the Parliament confirms Arango, then Arango's in that post. Arango controls the ministry. If Nouri doesn't like what he's doing, he can't remove him. It takes a vote in Parliament to remove a minister. Just like it takes a vote in Parliament to confirm a minister.

'Acting ministers' do not exist in the Constitution. Nouri pretends that an 'acting minister,' for example, runs the Defense Ministry. No. Nouri runs it. The person has never been confirmed by Parliament and he does what Nouri tells him to do. If he doesn't, Nouri replaces him.

How does a so-called leader not get impeached when two years after he's been sworn in as prime minister he still hasn't nominated anyone to be the Minister of Defense?

Especially at a time when Iraq is seeing increased violence.

AP quotes Brookings Doha Center's analyst and director Salman Shaikh stating, "Those behind the attacks, they've become more determined now and see more of an opportunity because of the dysfunctional political process."

Alsumaria reports that Parliament's Commission on Security and Defense Council is insisting that there is "success" in protecting the people from terrorism. Apparently, those killed and wounded today and the rest of the week are supposed to be swept under the rug because an estimated 6 million people made the pilgrimage. (AFP's Salam Faraj and Laith Hammoudi report "tens of thousands," not millions.) That probably won't bring comfort to the wounded or the family members of the dead. BBC News quotes police officer Ahmed Maati stating, "We rushed to the scene, there were dismembered bodies, shoes, plastic bags, women's robes left all around, and people were screaming everywhere." Al Rafidayn points out that nine provinces have seen large scale bombings this week (Iraq has 18 provinces). Moving the focus beyond just Baghdad, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 51 dead and one-hundred-and-fifty-four injured across the country.

As Iraq explodes, President Jalal Talabani continues to shrink. Alsumaria reports that he's written an indignant letter to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi and KRG President Massoud Barazni in which he belittles Moqtada al-Sadr and in which he insists he'd rather resign than change his opinion and forward the petition with 176 signatures to Parliament (the petition calls for a no-confidence vote on Nouri). Poor overweight Jalal. Last month, he'd pictured himself getting his arteries cleaned in the US and the pigging out on Philly Cheesesteaks. Now his image is in tatters, his political party PUK has asked him to lower his profile (his weakness is hurting the party) and he's been told not to leave the country. Back on April 28th, he talked big to Moqtada, Allawi and Barzani. He swore that he could remove Nouri as prime minister all by his lonesome. Then Nouri did a little pressue, the US did a little pressure, and like a cheap belt, Jalal buckled. Next year the KRG holds provincial elections. The PUK is furious with Jalal for his decision not to forward the petition. It's made Massoud Barzani even more popular in the KRG, it's made him look even more like a leader and Jalal look even weaker and more ineffectual. (The two main parties in the KRG are the Jalal's PUK and Barzani's KDP. In the last years, Goran has emerged as a third party. PUK officials fear that they are losing power not to Barzani's KDP but to the emerging Goran as a result of Jalal's embarrassing moves.)

With or without Jalal, efforts at a no-confidence continue. Alsumaria reports that Moqtada al-Sadr says there will be a meeting on Sunday to address the issue of questioning Nouri before Parliament. With Jalal betraying them, Moqtada, Allawi and Barzani are now pursuing another avenue -- one in the Constitution -- in which they bring Nouri before the Parliament, question him and then move towards a vote.

The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan, The NewsHour and the Guardian -- updated last night and today:

Brett McGurk is a natural focus for this site and we've been noting his lack of qualifications since Laura Rozen first reported he was going to be the new nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq. (Laura scooped everyone with that story.) We began reviewing his qualifications and noted he was not qualified. Peter Van Buren blogged about about problems with McGurk early on. We linked to his writing and echoed those points here. That was before the confirmation hearing.

The day before the confirmation hearing, I knew I'd have to do something in the snapshot to note what was coming. But even I didn't know what was coming. I was going to review again the reasons McGurk is unqualified. Not a problem. And we did do that. But while visiting various offices, I was in a Senator's office where a conversation was taking place in whispers about Brett McGurk and some reporter (Gina Chon's name wasn't mentioned -- she was a nobody in most people's eyes at that point). As I left the office, I searched the web on my iPhone and found them at Cryptome. (I searched "Brett McGurk" "e-mails" on Google. At that point on Tuesday, it was the third result. The other two were on different topics. Cryptome was the first site to post them -- they had earlier been posted to Flickr.)

Reading them, it was obvious this created a new problem with the nomination: Iraqi women will have to cut themselves off from the US Embassy if McGurk is confirmed. That's a little over half the country's population. No one whose mere presence cuts off half the host country's population should be allowed to be an ambassador.

Did anyone care about that? I didn't see it on my TV, I didn't read it in the newspapers.

Iraqi women apparently are invisible in the US.

They certainly were invisible in Gina Chon's pathetic e-mail yesterday where she pretended to have suffered. Ask Iraqi women about suffering, Gina Chon, ask them. The e-mails Brett McGurk exchanged with Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon in 2008 while both were in Baghdad are part of the public record. If Chon doesn't like it, that's too damn bad. Maybe they shouldn't have written each other about blue balls? Maybe, since Gina was carrying several devices, she should have used something other than her work phone to e-mail on and McGurk should have used something other than government equipment to e-mail her?

But McGurk was already known in Iraq and now he's known as the man who came to Iraq already married and then engaged in extra marital sex. A community member in Iraq wrote that it would have been better for Iraqi women if McGurk (Anglo White) had been involved with some White woman from England or the US. But Chon is a person of color and that sort of leaves open the notion that McGurk might sleep with Iraqi women as well. And it's that belief that's going to prevent most -- if not all -- Iraqi women from accessing the US Embassy if McGurk is confirmed. So-called 'honor' killings are not something I've made up. Each year, in their human rights report, the US State Dept documents them.

Why the hell would a government send someone to another country as an ambassador if they knew that person's mere presence would prevent half the country from accessing the embassy?

We spent three snapshots on the confirmation hearing alone. He's no qualified. Iraiqya doesn't trust him. You've got the most popular political slate in the country (Iraqiya) saying they don't trust him. And that's who you're going to send into Iraq to (hopefully) 'smooth things over'? How's that going to work? No one wanted to ask, on the Committe, about the political impasse. Not seriously. How in the world can McGurk address that in any credible manner when he's seen as being too close to Nouri al-Maliki -- the man responsible for starting Political Stalemate I (the gridlock after the March 2010 elections through November 2010) and Political Stalemate II (December 2010 to the present)?

What you think of the affair between diplomat Brett McGurk and
journalist Gina Chon depends in part on your view of professional
ethics, in part on your political affiliation, and in part on your
e-mail habits. And on your sympathy for the human condition. That might
have something to do with it, too.

Thank you, Bwana Margaret. In Margaret's xenophobic world, Iraqi women just don't exist. No one would think of them and certainly no one would care what happened to them.

In Margaret's xenophobic world, you might care due to journalism and government ethics, you might care if you were a partisan Republican or Democrat, or you might care because you send out e-mails. But you'd never care because of the fate of Iraqi women.

I'm not surprised -- please, we all lived through 2008 -- to see women devalued so by the US press. I am surprised, however, when it's by a columnist who repeatedly wants to be seen as caring and compassionate and has been accused of trotting out family stories solely in order to prop up that image.

Iraq is a nation of widows and orphans due to the illegal Iraq War and the sanctions which came before that. At some point and time, the US government might want to responsibility for their actions and might want to start thinking how they can help Iraqi women, not how they hurt them further.

Sending Mr. Playboy who can't handle "blue balls" to Iraq is not going to help Iraqi women. It would appear that Barack Obama has the war on women. He's the one trying to force Brett McGurk into Iraq. He's also the one who's now nominated three people to be US Ambassador to Iraq and all three of men. (And I believe we also stand alone in our criticism of that -- and remember Ava and I lobbied Barack's transitional administration to make a woman the Ambassador to Iraq back at the end of 2008 so it's not like the idea's never been presented to them -- our argument was that a qualfiied person who was a woman would, by her presence alone, lift Iraqi women's boats a little higher. We're also the only ones making the accurate criticism that, in one term, a president shouldn't be nominating three people to the same post. That's your first indication that vetting hasn't been done.)

As for Gina Chon. Go back up to those linked entries. We were perfectly happy not going into a great deal about Gina Chon. She got a pass here in part because she was a woman. But I was repeatedly stating that we weren't going to go into the ethical issues involving Chon because CJR and others would. They didn't. When they didn't, we had to step forward.

Gina Chon's as much an Iraq story as Judith Miller. It's a real shame that Judith Miller can't claim to have married her government sources (Scooter Libby) because then CJR would insist it didn't really matter and was 'too much information' and we all needed to look the other way.

Though it didn't make the snapshots, we did cover many other issues this week -- ones as important as who will or will not be the next US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered Jalal Talabani's increasingly ineffectual public image. (Which is in the Iraqi news today again.) We're the only ones who have probably explored the shrinking Jalal.

This entry's really a reply to three e-mails in the public account. People claiming to be visitors but more than likely Gina Chon friends or Gina herself. We have always defended Iraqi women here. If you want to lie and say you've read this "blog" since day one, you might try checking the archives.

You'd find it's not "a blog." A blog would be what I want to write about and this site early on ceased to be that. I write on demand, based on what the community wants covered. That's Iraq. In 2006, we created the Iraq snapshot because there was alarm over how little Iraq coverage there was in the MSM. And as that coverage has vanished, we've continued to cover Iraq. We cover Iraq related issues like veterans issues. We cover Congressional hearings and UN presenations. Check the archives.

And when you do, you'll notice things like Abeer. We never dropped the story of Abeer. The young teenager who was gang raped by US soldiers in her own home while she heard her five-year-old sister and bother her parents killed in the next room, shot dead. When Steven D. Green took 'his turn' in the gang-rape, he also shot Abeer to death. She had lived in fear of him before the attack. He'd manned checkpoint in her neighborhood. He'd stared at her and touched her and made comments that unnerved her. If the attack had been the next night, she wouldn't have been there becuase her parents had arranged for her to go to a relative because they too were bothered by Green's behavior. It was a brief flurry in the US press. Then it was largely forgotten. The whitewash had already started with Carloyn and Robert of the New York Times. we covered all this in real time. And when Green went on trial finally, we covered the trial every day.

So the three of you who are so concerned about Gina Chon and wonder if, in the name of 'sisterhood,' I can just let it go? No. No, I can't. Because Iraqi women have been betrayed enough. And I will not be silent while the Senate considers confirming a nominee who will make Iraqi women's lives harder by his very presence.

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The Gentlemen's Club for Journalism." Former Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon sprawls across a bed and explains, "After getting fired, I wallowed. Now I'm ready to make some money. Some reporters take notes during interviews. Some make audio recordings. I videotaped mine. That's where the big money is! As a member of the Gentleman's Club for Journalism, you'll receive one DVD a month for just $29.99 a month. Each DVD will be jam packed with hardcore journalism. I'll show you how I got deep, penetrating interviews and how to cheer up a source who's feeling blue. Must be 18 or older." Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Friday, June 15, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Gina Chon wants it all to be about her, more Democratic Senators are bothered by Brett McGurk's nomination, the VA is approximately six weeks behind in paying veterans their GI Bill benefits checks (remember in 2009 when that was supposed to have been fixed), OPEC discusses oil prices, War Criminal Tony Blair is heckled again, and more.

Today disgraced former Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon attempted to shove Jesus off the cross so she could climb up there herself. Gawker posts her e-mail:

I've seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S. The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for the last two years, look like a playground.

But underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost many friends.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.

I want you to know, though, that while I worked in Iraq for the paper, Brett never gave me sensitive or classified information nor did he trade his knowledge for my affection. We were both dedicated professionals too committed to our jobs and had too much respect for each other to do anything like that. And as individuals, it's simply not who we are or how we approach our work. Nor did he need to. He was authorized to speak on occasion on background with journalists and did so with me, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other news outlets.

Gina Chon, you were not a 'dedicated professional.' If you had been, you would have followed the ethical guidelines of journalism as well as the Dow Jones written ethical policy you signed. If you were a 'dedicated professional,' you would still be working for the Wall St. Journal. So stop lying.

Let's go through some of that.

I've seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S. The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for the last two years, look like a playground.

How typical that all she could recall is the ugliness. Most people would embrace the humanity or see a mixture. How telling that she chose to wallow in the ugliness. The glass is always half full, chipped and unwashed for Gina.

And what venom? Most newspapers and outlets have ignored your huge lapse in journalism ethics. Jokes have yet to circulate about you -- but they are coming, they are. You did wrong and you got caught.

The fact that you were fired and you still can't admit that it was your fault goes to your lack of maturity and your failure to practice your profession ethically.

But underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost many friends.

The full truth is you were forbideen to sleep with your sources. The full truth is you ignored the Dow Jones ethics policy. The full truth is you violated it. A lapse? One tumble might have been a lapse. But you didn't inform your editor of what happened and a 'lapse' turned into an affair.

I don't give a ___ whether you sucked him off to glory or you rode him to ecstatsy, Gina Chon. I give a damn that you lied to everyone including the readers.

You do not sleep with government officials you are supposed to be covering. You are obviously as stupid as you are unethical to even write such a whine. The one thing you had going for you was that people respected the fact that you appeared to be taking your lumps without bitching and moaning in public. You've blown that. Now you're just another pathetic scandal, someone who gets caught and refuses to take accountability.

We have wall between press and state in the US. Maybe that's news to you, Gina. But unlike in China, Iran and other countries, we don't have state control of the media. When you're sent to cover Iraq for the Wall St. Journal, readers have a right to believe that you're doing it to the best of your abilities. When you sleep with a US government official, that throws that belief out the window. You violated the ethics, you showed your copy to McGurk -- which is what outraged everyone and why they suggested you resign immediately or they could fire you on the spot.

You lost your right to whine about "loss" in the War Zone. You know why?

Because you're the cheater. Ask John Edwards, the cheater doesn't get to whine. You cheated on your husband, Brett McGurk cheated on his wife. While that's not our focus here when you try to play utlimate victim you better grasp that you and Brett can't pull it off. You're two people who didn't keep your vows. Public sympathy goes to the spouses you cheated on. Try another trick, Gina.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.

You know what, Judith Miller probably would love to still be at the New York Times. Reporting is not a hobby, you don't dabble in it. Most people and outlets do not say "Gina Chon reported . . ." They say, "I heard on NPR" or "I saw an NBC Nightly News" or "I read in USA Today." You disgraced the Dow Jones with your behavior. You're going to be in the journalism text books now so you better start trying to come up with a better line of argument than 'My hot loins moistened at the thought of his throbbing member while he texted 'blue balls' to me.' It was not a "stupid mistake," it was a gross violation of journalism ethics. You're very lucky this came out in 2012.

Had it come in 2008, CJR would be crucifying you, The Nation would forget the name "Judith Miller" as they went to town on you, Greg Mitchell would do non-stop posts about you, speaking to everyone you've ever worked with. But because Bush is out of office and your husband is Barack Obama's nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq, these outlets and others are down playing what happened.

It's amazing that, as you climb on the cross, and glorify yourself, you forget to apologize for what you did which was not "stupid mistakes." You weren't a teenager, you weren't an intern. You were a professional journalist working for a US newspaper with the highest circulation. When this started, last week, I was reminded of James Brooks' Broadcast News. Albert Brooks makes a crack. And I thought, "What is it he says? It's about whether you'd tell a source you' loved them to get information -- it's funny, it's . . . Oh."

"Oh" because the butt of the joke is a woman and when that happens, we always have to wonder, is the joke fair or not? And so I decided not to include an excerpt of the whole would-you-sleep-with-your-source-to-get-a-story bit which ends with Albert Brooks saying, "Jennifer didn't know there was an alternative." Ha-ha-ha-ha. And now Gina Chon's name can be footnoted to that joke apparently. Guess what?

Women have not come far enough. When a Martha Raddatz (ABC News) has to talk on NPR (Tell Me More, February 22, 2011) about covering wars and having children -- not to talk about the juggle that so many of us who work and raise children can relate to but because suddenly the spin for the day is 'maybe women shouldn't be allowed in war zones,' we have not come far enough.

Women have not come far enough in our society. We can't absorb your inability to follow the basic ethics, Gina. Your actions betray women. Not because you cheated on a 'sister,' but because you were such an idiot that you have taken the Iraq War, where women came to the forefront of reporting -- and had to pay for that already by having the scapegoat for the war itself be a woman (Judith Miller) -- and put that accomplishment at risk, put it at risk of turning all of the work into a dirty joke. Women have not come far enough to afford your ethical lapse.

Jane Arraf, Lara Jakes, Rebecca Santana, Deborah Haynes, Nancy A. Youssef, Sabrina Tavernise, Alyssa J. Rubin, Tina Susman, Alexandra Zavis, Ellen Knickmeyer, Erica Goode, Deborah Amos, Cara Buckley, Anna Badkhen, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Liz Sly, Alice Fordham, Deborah Haynes, Sahar Issa and many other women have risked a great deal to report from Iraq. Your name used to be on that list. Check the archives, earlier this year we were still including you here on that list.

You should be apologizing to women in the profession for you failure to follow the ethics policy. One woman on the list in the first sentence of the above paragraph has been dogged by false rumors that the US military brass in Iraq fed her stories because she was sleeping with a general. We've talked about that before here and how her male colleagues were the ones spreading the false rumors. It wasn't a rival outlet, it was her own colleagues. Jealous over what she was doing and feeling petty so they spread rumors about her. She kept her head up, ignored the rumors and continued (and continues now) to do her work.

Gina Chon, that woman knows about being persecuted. She knows about being turned into a joke. And she was innocent of the slander her male colleagues spread. She didn't climb on the cross and play the victim so why you think anyone should give a damn that you wish you hadn't been caught violating the ethics of your profession is beyond me.

Now we haven't gone there here. We've tried to make it about Brett McGurk. I'd hoped to not write about you at any length. But when the so-called media watchdogs refused to bark over the fact that you had a sexual relationship in Baghdad with a Bush official while covering Iraq, we had to wade in. But there are several barriers I still haven't crossed. For example, we haven't examined your part in the 2008 e-mails here or even quoted from your own 2008 e-mails. In addition, I was asked by a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about your reporting from that period and I tried to play dumb and he pointed out that I was stalling and I said, "I'm just not comfrotable with that question."

Gina Chon, if you continue to try to play the world's utlimate victim, I can easily say, "Check out the story filed ___, paragraph three, specifically ___" and you and I both know what I mean.

Because of Barack the media watchdogs -- which apparently are partisan as the right has long charged -- aren't doing their job and you're very lucky for that. But I can do their job for them. And I will if you don't stop trying to play injured party. You violated journalism ethics and just as a reporter who plagiarizes gets fired, you lost your job. Quit trying to make it about love. You weren't fired for falling in love. You were fired for sleeping with your source, you were fired for sleeping with someone you let see your copy -- your former bosses say "vet," you say "seek feedback."

Gina Chon's current husband is Brett McGurk who, at 39, has been nominated by Barack Obama to head the US mission in Iraq. He would be the US Ambassador to Iraq if confirmed, over the largest US diplomatic mission in the world despite not speaking Arabic, despite lacking management experience, despite his established practice of sending e-mails to women he hasn't slept with about his "blue balls." HR's going to have a lot of fun in Iraq if McGurk gets to supervise women.

McGurk's presence means Iraqi women are not welcome at the US Embassy. That's going to mean a number of programs are cancelled. You never heard about those programs because the press never cared enough to write about them. I'm not sure they ever even reported on one of Brooke Darby's appeareances before Congress in the last eight months (Darby is with the State Dept). But with the US government having put thugs in charge of Iraq -- to scare the people into submission while various economic programs were put in place -- so-called 'honor' killings are a real threat to Iraqi women.

Honor killings remained a serious problem. Legislation in force permits honor considerations to mitigate sentences. According to the UNHCR in April, honor killings were prevalent in all parts of the country. For the first nine months of the year, the domestic NGO Human Rights Data Bank recorded 314 burn victims (125 instances of self-immolation and 189 cases of burning), compared with 234 burn victim during the same period in 2008.

Honor killings remained a serious problem throughout all parts of the country. The penal code of 1969 permits honor considerations to mitigate sentences.

Statistics published by the KRG Ministry of Interior in 2010 stated that there were 102 incidents of women burned in and around Erbil Province alone. Sixty-five percent of these cases were still under investigation during the year. Women who committed self-immolation had been previously victimized, but police investigated only a small number of women's burn cases. The KRG reported that during the year 76 women were killed or committed suicide, while 330 were burned or self-immolated, but a number of NGOs, including the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, stated that such estimates were low.

So visiting the US Embassy in Iraq -- for the small business training or any program or concern -- becomes a danger for Iraqi women who will be sneered at for ties to the Americans and now for a US Ambassador known to sleep with women in Iraq other than his own wife. "You got a micro loan! What did you do for it?" Brett McGurk as US Ambassador to Iraq means a threat to Iraqi women -- especially in the KRG that he testified he would be visiting every week if named Ambassador.

It's really past time for Americans to be asking what would McGurk's appointment do to help Iraqi women? The answer is nothing. It would put them at risk if they visited the Embassy, it would most likely mean many Iraqi women would have nothing to do with the Embassy.

It's a real shame that the press won't protect Iraqi women. It's a real shame that Gina Chon believes she's suffering when she has spent time in Iraq and should know the ultimate victims of the war were and remain Iraqi women.

Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and the same administration that insists Brett McGurk is qualified for the post of Ambassador is attempting to drum Van Buren out of the State Dept for his whistleblowing book. Peter's been covering the McGurk nomination for some time and has noted at length the various ethical violations McGurk has engaged in -- violations that the State Dept punishes others for but that McGurk gets waived through on. In his most recent post, Van Buren notes that the bubbling under of the 'underground video' of McGurk getting a blow job on top of Saddam's palace by a woman who is not his first wife or his second wife (watch out, Gina, she may be the one who replaces you!). He also notes more unethical behavior on the part of McGurk and Chon:

Meanwhile in sleaze land, the Washington Post reports that McGurk invited his then-mistress Chon to be a guest lecturer at a Harvard course he taught in 2009. Harvard students attending the class had no idea that their teacher was romantically involved with Chon, who spoke to them about her experience reporting getting inside info by sleeping with her sources in Iraq, according to a student who attended.

(Sigh) Needless to say, both the Stickman and Chon were married to others when they arranged to have Harvard pay for Chon to spend some quality time with Brett on the university's dime. Another classy move McGurk!

No, Gina, that's not "dedicated professionalism." Try again, Gina. And here's a little hint, when you trade sexual favors for benefits it's usually considered prostitution.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: I need to move to the GI Bill real quick. And I just want to paraphrase an article which was written [by Tony Burbeck] on June the 12th which was Tuesday in the Charlotte Observer. It talks about local veterans who are now enrolled in a school that aren't getting their tuition and student housing money as promised from the GI Bill and it's threatening their ability to stay in school and to pay their rent. I won't name the veterans, five of them. "They say that they're facing the same problems: thousands of dollars in government backed tuition money from their GI Bills plus a monthly basic housing allowance which hasn't come through since they started class May the 7th." Not even a book fee. Haven't received anything. "We got out of the United States Marine Corps April 22nd." "Hall's certificate of eligibility says he's entitled to 100 percent of benefits covered under the GI Bill at an institution of higher education. He's in school, but his tutition hasn't been paid. Hall says he might have to drop out of if the GI Bill tuition payment doesn't come through. He added the Department of Veterans Affairs also told him they are six to eight weeks behind processing payments. Hall is already at the end of the line with rent money that could be paid with the housing allowance. He said he faced eviction if he didn't receive the money. Some veterans have taken out student loans they didn't think they needed to. Others are working all night to make up for those missing benefits. 'I have received zero of my VA benefits,' White said." And Maxwell said "Nothing." Does that disturb you? Because everytime this Committee asks the question of the VA, "Are we late on payments? Is this thing working?," the answer we get is, "Yeah. It works perfectly. We're getting them out there." These are guys who have been in school since May the 7th They're veterans. It's a pretty reputable media outlet. Feel fairly certain that this Marine didn't get it wrong, 100% eligable. But there's no payment going to his school. There's no housing stipend, there's no book fee that's being made.

Curtis Coy: Senator, we're always concerned with any of our veterans who are getting payments late. We process educational claims in four different sites across the country. Uh, right now for original claims, uh, Mr. Worley can-can correct me on the, uh, exact number perhaps but on original claims, we're looking at, uh, processing times of 30 to 35 days for supplemental claims, anywhere from 10 to 15 days --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: So is the VA official who talked to this Marine and told the Marine that they were six to eight weeks behind processing payments, was that bogus?

Curtis Coy: No, sir. I don't think it's bogus at all. There are some that take longer than others. Uh, what I gave you was an average time, not the range of times. We've had ranges much higher than that, as you might imagine. We, uh, track these, uh, claims on a daily basis and so, uh, we take all of those kinds of issues --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: What do -- what do the Marines do, Mr. Coy? The school's working with them. They're keeping them in. He may be in school but he might be evicted from his place on a beneft that he -- that he's earned. He deserves. What are we -- what are we going to do? I don't think -- And if I thought I was talking about an isolated case, I wouldn't press this. I don't think I am.

Robert Worely II: Ranking Member Burr, I would only say that when these -- when these come to our attention, uh, we find out what happened and we correct them as quickly as possible.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: I'll make sure when you leave you've got this news article.

Curtis Coy and Worely are with the VA (Worely is the Director of Education Service). There is no excuse for this and there has never been an excuse. Let's drop back to the October 19, 2009 snapshot for an exchange during the October 18, 2009 House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing.

US House Rep Harry Teague: You know we've had a problem with some contradictory information coming out. You know when the checks didn't go out the first of the month, well then we issued the letter that they would be cut on Friday the second. And then there was also some letters sent out that if, like in places like New Mexico, it's 320 miles to the only hospital and the only facility in the state that they would be going to some of the larger universities around and handing the checks out. That didn't happen. At the same time, they got a website up where they could go to but we didn't get that information to people. So I was just wondering if we're streamlining our communications within our office there so that we don't continually jerk the veterans around and have some of them misinformed.

Keith Wilson: I understand your concerns, Congressman. And we-we have, I believe, we have a better process in place to make sure that we are communicating more effectively on that. The issues that we are dealing with was trying to get -- make sure we had something out the gate and-and informed our student population prior to 10-1 [October 1st] -- around the 10-1 time frame. The 10-1 was important because most folks were at that point where they were due their first housing allowance payments. .We thought it was important to get something up as soon as possible. We were dealing -- and continued to deal -- at the time of that press release, with some technical issues concerning how we get to the other locations beyond our 57 regional offices. We very early on wanted a desire to spread this out as much as possible. We felt that the most effective way of doing this was leveraging technology. Taking into account that we've got technology students at thousands of locations across the country. We felt the most effective way of uh getting those folk that weren't within distance of a regional office was to allow technology and so that was the driver for our decision on the follow up --

US House Rep Harry Teague: Yes and I agree with that and I think that the webpage is working good. It's just that during that week prior to that, when I was at New Mexico State University, they were expecting someone to be there with the checks and then, on Friday when there's not, that's when we find out about the webpage.

Keith Wilson: I understand.

The same problems continue nearly three years later. Can you pay the benefit or not? Holding onto the money is not payment. Veterans shouldn't have to take out short term loans and risk eviction because the VA still can't get its act together. There is no excuse for this. Throughout fall 2009 and early 2010, when the press was reporting on this problem, in one hearing after another in the House and Senate the Veterans Affairs Committee were assured by VA officials -- including Secretary Eric Shinseki -- that the problems had been addressed and were now in the past and the VA needed no additional resources. So why is this again a problem nearly three years later?

Meanwhile Iraq is dependent upon oil. Despite years of cries from Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi for Iraq to diversify its economy, Iraq remains solely dependent upon oil. It has been pumping out a large amount at a time when OPEC is concerned with a "glut" on the world market. Abdalla Salem el-Badri is in charge of OPEC (not some Iraqi despite bad press reporting this week). Secretary General el-Badri's spoke at the OPEC seminar in Vienna Wednesday. We'll note the speech's main point (use the link to read in full):

Fossil fuels - which currently account for 87% of the world's energy supply - will still contribute 82% by 2035. Oil will retain the largest share for most of the period to 2035, although its overall share falls from 34% to 28%. It will remain central to growth in many areas of the global economy, especially the transportation sector. Coal's share remains similar to today, at around 29%, whereas gas increases from 23% to 25%. In terms of non-fossil fuels, renewable energy grows fast. But as it starts from a low base, its share will still be only 3% by 2035. Hydropower will increase only a little - to 3% by 2035. Nuclear power will also witness some expansion, although prospects have been affected by events in Fukushima. It is seen as having only a 6% share in 2035.

[. . .]

In terms of resources, there are more than enough to meet expected demand growth. And overall, fossil fuels will continue to supply over 80% of our energy needs by 2035, with oil the energy type with the largest share for most of this period.Finally, given the long-term nature of our industry and the need for clarity and predictability - not only for oil, but energy in general - I would like to leave you with three appropriate words: 'stability, stability, stability'. Stability for investments and expansion to flourish; Stability for economies around the world to grow; And stability for producers that allows them a fair return from the exploitation of their exhaustible natural resources.Stability is the key to a sustainable global energy future for us all.

Today Guy Chazan (Financial Times of London) reports, "Iran and Iraq are forming a strenghtening alliance inside Opec, raising concerns among moderate Arab Gulf producers like Saudi Arabia and increasing the potential for discord in the oil producers' group." El-Badri is Secretary-General through the end of this year. There are four people currently angling for the job. Thamir Ghadhban (close ties to Nouri), Iran's pushing for one of their former Ministers of Oil, Gholamhossein Nozari, Equador's putting up Minister of Oil Wilson Pastor-Morris and Saudi Arabia is backing their OPEC Governor Majid al-Munif. The choice will have a global impact and, in fact, what's going on right now has a global impact. Amena Bakr and Peg Mackey (Reuters) observe, "Oil prices have dropped from a $128 peak for Brent crude in March to $97, in part because the economic outlook has darkened but also because of increased Saudi output that in April set a 30-year high of 10.1 million barrels a day." AFP reports, "OPEC members have been divided over how to respond to plunging prices and uncertainties over global energy demand, with kingpin Saudi Arabia recently ramping up production while hawks Venequela and Iran have called for cuts so as to boost prices. On Thursday, most memebers agreed on an average price of at least $100 per barrel, with Angolan Oil Minister Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos describing this as 'the comfortable level'." Kay Johnson (AP) notes, "For now, Iraq is backing Iran's push for OPEC to set lower production limits and keep prices high, but Baghdad's own ambitious plans for expansion could cause an overall production growth that might drive down prices." April Yee (The National) adds:

Already this year Iraq has increased its exports by a fifth to pump 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd), enough to help offset the decrease in Iranian supplies caused by sanctions - alongside Saudi Arabia and a recovering Libya.

Iraq's target is to add another 400,000 bpd by next year, all in pursuit of its goal of 10 million bpd in total pumping capacity in 2017- equal to the current production of Saudi Arabia, Opec's top producer.

Although analysts say that goal is not realistic, they do see Iraq overtaking Iran, Opec's second-biggest producer, as soon as next month.

, ""

Iraq and Iran are pushing Iraq

Meanwhile the Tehran Times reports, "Iranian Cooperatives, Labor, and Social Welfare Minister Abdolreza Sheikholeslami has said that the ministry is ready to provide Iraq with services in the fields of social welfare, technical and vocational trainings, rehabilitation and job creation."

Alsumaria reports that the Sadr bloc states the move for a no-confidence vote is still on. The way it would work now is summoning Nouri before the Parliament for questioning (which they have the Constitutional power to do) and then, after questioning, making a motion for a vote. This would cut the treacherous Jalal Talabani out of the picture and he'd be resigned to his ceremonial, do-nothing post that he does nothing in.

Desperate to appear to have some strength in a country where perceptions of strength matter, Al Rafidayn reports Jalal is now saying he'll call a national conference to address the political crisis that started as 2010 ended when Nouri ignored the Erbil Agreement. That US-brokered contract ended the 8 month political stalemate which followed the March 2010 elections. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya but the Little Saddam wouldn't step down. Little Saddam wanted a second term. Little Saddam was backed by Tehran and DC so his public tantrum was rewarded. The US got the political blocs to go along with Nouri having a second term by promising various concessions would be made (such as, in his second term, Nouri will be bound by the Constitution, specifically Article 140 which he refused to follow in his first term). All political blocs signed off on this contract, Nouri signed off as well (November 2010), the US government swore it was a binding agreement that would be honored. The next day, Parliament held a session finally -- the first real one since the elections. They elected a Speaker of Parliament and Jalal named Nouri prime minister-designate. Nouri immediately refused to implement the creation of an independent national security commission headed by Allawi. Allawi and the bulk of Iraqiya walked out. The American officials talked them back into the session, swearing this was temporary, the Erbil Agreement would be honored.

They lied.

In December Nouri went from prime minister-designate to prime minister. And Nouri made clear that the Erbil Agreement wasn't a priority. By summer 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr are calling for the agreement to be implemented. This is the ongoing political crisis.

Since the government was formed at the end of 2010, all efforts of power sharing among Prime Minister Maliki and the main Sunni political bloc, Iraqiya, the Kurds, and even some of his Shiite partners has faltered. As a result, the three security ministries that were supposed to be shared among all of the political blocs remain under the prime minister's control.

The cabinet as it functions now allows the prime minister to rule by decree. Those bylaws were supposed to be revised. That has never happened. An oil law was also supposed to be passed, and that hasn't happened. As a result, mistrust has grown on all sides.

Since late April, the primary Sunni bloc--Iraqiya--the main Kurdish bloc, and Sadr's Shiite lawmakers have all come out in favor of a vote of no confidence against Maliki. This effort climaxed last weekend when the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, was asked to call for a vote of no confidence in the parliament. But Talabani, who is a Kurd but has very close ties with Maliki, at the end of the day said that there were not enough signatures to call for such a vote. So now Maliki's main competitors--the Iraqiya block, the Sadrists and the Kurds--are trying to gain more signatures to force Talabani to call a vote of no confidence. But if not, they are saying they're still going to call Maliki to the parliament--which technically they can do--for hearings, for questioning, and then after that, they want to call for a vote for no confidence. All of that shows the trust has broken down in Iraqi politics.

Iraq was destroyed in the illegal war Bully Boy Bush and Tony Blair conspired to launch with multiple lies. While Bush generally attempts a low profile, Tony's so desperate for cash, he keeps going out in public and the results, as he found out yesterday in Hong Kong, are not good. Lewis Smith (Independent) reports Tom Grundy attempted to do a citizen's arrest of the man whose lies killed millions, making it "the third occassion in as many weeks in which demonstrators have heckled the former prime minister." Press TV notes:

Antiwar protesters have repeatedly called for the trial of Blair for war crimes. Last month, a group of demonstrators interrupted a commencement speech by Blair at Colby College in Maine, the US, shouting "warmonger" and "war criminal". One week later, while Blair was giving evidence at an inquiry into his links with the British media, another protester managed to enter the courtroom and demanded Blair's arrest for war crimes. In November last, a symbolic tribunal in Malaysia found Blair and former US President George W Bush guilty for committing "crimes against peace" when they invaded Iraq.

During their stay at the Maroma Hotel, a pricey retreat on Mexico's Caribbean coast, Cherie Booth/Blair took her husband by the hand and led him along the beach to a 'Temazcal', a steam bath enclosed in a brick pyramid. It was dusk and they had stripped down to their swimming costumes. Inside, they met Nancy Aguilar, a new-age therapist. She told them that the pyramid was a womb in which they would be reborn. The Blairs became one with 'Mother Earth'. They saw the shapes of phantom animals in the steam and experienced 'inner-feelings and visions'. As they smeared each other with melon, papaya and mud from the jungle, they confronted their fears and screamed. The joyous agonies of 'rebirth' were upon them. The ceremony over, the Prime Minister and First Lady waded into the sea and cleaned themselves up as best they could.

Time Out Hong Kong interviews Grundy here. The Daily Mail has video of the attempted arrest yesterday. As does Tom Grundy at his website Global Citizen where he explains:"This evening, I attempted a citizen's arrest upon Tony Blair, who was speaking at Hong Kong University. I did this in the hope of renewing debate around the solid war crimes case against him, and in order that the campaign to conduct citizen's arrests against Blair continues whenever and wherever he goes. The action was legal under cap. 221 of the Laws of Hong Kong, section 101(2) which allows for citizen's arrest upon suspicion of serious crimes. He mis-led the British public over the 2003 Iraq invasion and caused the deaths of at least 100,000 people. I believe it to be abhorrent that HKU is sponsoring a talk about faith hosted by a man who set religious tolerance back decades."Blair admitted in 2009 that he would have gone to war regardless of Iraq's alleged WMDs -- international law does not allow a war of aggression in the name of regime change. He stated in 2002 that Iraq's production of WMDs was 'beyond doubt' and thus misled the British people. The use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs may constitute 'aggression' in that they are indiscriminate and cause large civilian causalities.

While Phony Tony tried to use his 'faith' foundation to enrich his pockets and his trashy image, Iraqi Christians face real threats as a result of the illegal war. Ann Rodgers (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) reports that an Atlanta conference of Catholic Bishops heard a plea yesterday on behalf of Iraqi Christians:

"As leaders of the church in the United States, you bear a special responsibility toward the people and Christians of Iraq. In 2003 your country led the war that brought some terrible consequences," said Bishop Schlemon Warduni, an auxiliary bishop of Babylon of the Chaldeans. His nation has gone from one where Christians and Muslims were friends to one where churches are bombed and clergy kidnapped, tortured and killed, he said."No more war, no more death, no more explosions, no more injustice," he told the bishops, who were gathered in Atlanta for their semiannual meeting.

"As leaders of the church in the United States," he told the bishops, "you bear a special responsibility toward the people and Christians of Iraq. In 2003, your government led the war that brought some terrible consequences. The U.S. government can and must do all it can to encourage tolerance and respect in Iraq, to help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and to provide assistance that helps create jobs for Iraqis, especially those on the margins.

"Many times we ask, 'Where can we find justice and peace?' Our Lord says, "I give you my peace, but not like the world gives." The peace of Jesus is love. This love guides us to unity, because love works miracles, and builds justice and peace. This can be realized when all the church works together in one heart and one thought," the bishop said.

"We beg you to do something for us," he continued. "We want only peace, security and freedom. You can tell everybody Iraq was very rich, but now is very poor, because of the war and much discrimination. We want to cry out to you: we want peace, justice, stability, freedom of religion. No more war, no more death, no more explosions, no more injustice. Please help us talk to everybody. Push the cause of peace.

Until Saturday night, Barzani, Allawi and al-Sadr were part of a four-some with President Jalal Talabani, working to replace Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister. Saturday night, surprising few, Jalal showed his hand and refused to forward the petition for a no-confidence vote to the Parliament. He insisted 16 signatures were not valid. He allowed people who had signed it weeks prior to remove their signatures. That's not how it works but that's how Jalal does. Now fat boy Jalal and his nearly 400 pounds of girth are all alone. He's the joke of Iraq with Iraqi social media laughing at him constantly. Both Allawi and members of the Kurdistan Alliance have exposed remarks Jalal made April 28th about replacing Nouri prompting a furious Jalal to deny them (and cite Allawi was wrong but Jalal knew enough not to attack the Kurdistan Alliance and didn't mention them) and his increasingly unpopular political party PUK was distributing explanations from Jalal in an attempt to help Talabani become less of a national joke.

Alsumaria reports that the Sadr bloc states the move for a no-confidence vote is still on. The way it would work now is summoning Nouri before the Parliament for questioning (which they have the Constitutional power to do) and then, after questioning, making a motion for a vote. This would cut the treacherous Jalal Talabani out of the picture and he'd be resigned to his ceremonial, do-nothing post that he does nothing in.

Desperate to appear to have some strength in a country where perceptions of strength matter, Al Rafidayn reports Jalal is now saying he'll call a national conference to address the political crisis that started as 2010 ended when Nouri ignored the Erbil Agreement. That US-brokered contract ended the 8 month political stalemate which followed the March 2010 elections. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya but the Little Saddam wouldn't step down. Little Saddam wanted a second term. Little Saddam was backed by Tehran and DC so his public tantrum was rewarded. The US got the political blocs to go along with Nouri having a second term by promising various concessions would be made (such as, in his second term, Nouri will be bound by the Constitution, specifically Article 140 which he refused to follow in his first term). All political blocs signed off on this contract, Nouri signed off as well (November 2010), the US government swore it was a binding agreement that would be honored. The next day, Parliament held a session finally -- the first real one since the elections. They elected a Speaker of Parliament and Jalal named Nouri prime minister-designate. Nouri immediately refused to implement the creation of an independent national security commission headed by Allawi. Allawi and the bulk of Iraqiya walked out. The American officials talked them back into the session, swearing this was temporary, the Erbil Agreement would be honored.

They lied.

In December Nouri went from prime minister-designate to prime minister. And Nouri made clear that the Erbil Agreement wasn't a priority. By summer 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr are calling for the agreement to be implemented. This is the ongoing political crisis.

Who has benefitted the most from it?

Moqtada al-Sadr.

'Too eratic, too radical, too young.' There was a list of 'toos' attached to the name of the person who wanted to be prime minister. While Nouri has looked like a dictator and out of control, Moqtada's actually benefitted from Little Saddam's tantrums which provided al-Sadr with the opportunity to show a rational and reasoned side as well as leadership skills that rarely translated prior on the world stage. It's a more mature Moqtada al-Sadr.

And that's really funny because the US government has always feared "radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr." True of the Bush adminsitration, true of the Barack administration.

In 2014, new elections are supposed to be held. If the US backs their puppet Nouri (who has had flunkies state that he would not run for a third term but whose attorney has stated Nouri can seek a third term), not only will it be clear to one and all that he is Little Saddam and 'democracy' in Iraq is a joke, but it will also become clear who has more power in the 'new' Iraq: DC or Tehran?

In 2010, Moqtada was not a viable choice for Tehran which feels closer ties to al-Sadr than Nouri but which was bothered by the 'too' list applied to Moqtada and by the fact that he was seen as divisive among Shi'ites (not to mention most Sunnis weren't crazy about him). The political crisis has allowed Moqtada to strut as a statesman and he's grabbed that opportunity and used it very well. He is the political star of Iraq currently. And, if nothing changes, in 2014, he will likely be backed by Tehran.

Not only did the current White House push Iraq into the arms of Iran, they've now alarmed their national security experts who have long believed that nothing is more dangerous to Iraq's future than Moqtada al-Sadr being in charge. Way to go, Barack!!!! What a leader.

But not just Barack, sadly.

US Vice President Joe Biden knows Nouri is a thug but has had to make excuses for him. Should Nouri hold on in 2014, then he will no longer be Little Saddam, he will be New Saddam. Meaning that in two decades, the US government will declare another illegal war to again topple the leadership in Iraq. At that time, Joe probably won't be with us. If he is, he won't have the strength to defend himself so that will fall to Beau and Beau will be stuck tring to explain how, yes, his father knew Nouri was a thug but the policies of US President Barack Obama insisted the thug be backed (right now Samantha Power is telling everyone to stay with Nouri because, she just knows -- Psychic Sammy -- Iraq's about to be put in charge of OPEC when they elect a Secretary General; this, Sammy insists, is what the US has long been hoping for, control of OPEC via a puppet!). Beau will be left to explain how someone known to run torture cells and secret prisons was backed by his father. The things people have said of Bush in the last eight years will be nothing compared to what gets said of Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Barack will probably beg off insisting that Joe was the 'foreign policy expert, he was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee all those years, that's why I put him in charge of Iraq, I was misled.' Joe will be dead or in ill health and become the fall guy for all the talking pundits on TV. The chattering class will revisit Joe's turns of phrases to ridicule him to a new generation and everyone will be too busy chuckeling to wonder how the vice president got blamed for what the president did.

And Beau, who loves his father very much, will be left to defend him from the chattering class. Those will be some hard years for Beau.

Alsumaria reports Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi informed the world today that he refused Joe Biden's request that he meet with Nouri al-Maliki. He states that Tony Blinken (Biden's National Security Advisor) made the request on Biden's behalf and urged that the opposition to Nouri back down. Kitabat notes that the US publicly insists it is not biased towards either side of the debate but that it worked repeatedly to undercut the opposition and to save Nouri. In an effort to distract from the foreign interference that saves his ass, Nouri al-Maliki is pointing fingers at Arab neighbors. Alsumaria reports that he has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of trying to overthrow Iraq and Syria.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.